Ejemplo Guildford Borough Council

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report
GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL
Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro

Feasibility Study
__________________
Final Report
November 2003
ITP/0807/2
H/Final Report minimised.doc 1

Guildford Borough Council
Client contract No.: Letter 21/07/03

IT Power reference: ITP/0807/2
Final Report : Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro Feasibility Study

November 2003
Contractor:
IT Power
The Manor House, Chineham Court,
Lutyens Close, Chineham,
RG24 8AG, United Kingdom.
Tel. +44 1256 392700
Fax. +44 1256 392701
E-mail: itpower@itpower.co.uk
http://www.itpower.co.uk
Document control
File path & name I:\0WorkITP\0Projects\Fluids\0807 Guildford
Mill\0contract\Reports
Author Oliver Paish
Project Manager Jamie O’Nians
Approved Jamie O’Nians
Date 07/11/2003
Distribution level Not for distribution
Guildford Mill Feasibility Study
FINAL REPORT
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................II
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE DESCRIPTION......................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1 OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES..................................................................................................................................... 1
2.3 THE TURBINE HOUSE.......................................................................................................................................... 2
2.4 STRUCTURAL SURVEY.......................................................................................................................................... 3
2.5 THE ORIGINAL TURBINE.......................................................................................................................................3
3. SITE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS....................................................................................................................4
4. AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW....................................................................................................... 4

4.1 HEAD................................................................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 FLOW DATA........................................................................................................................................................5
5. TURBINE OPTIONS..........................................................................................................................................6
5.1 REINSTALL EXISTING TURBINE................................................................................................................................7
5.2 INSTALL SECOND-HAND TURBINE............................................................................................................................ 7
5.3 INSTALL NEW TURBINE..........................................................................................................................................8
5.4 CONCLUSION ON TURBINE CHOICE ......................................................................................................................... 9
6. SCREENING....................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.1 EXISTING SCREEN................................................................................................................................................9
6.2 SCREENING OPTIONS..........................................................................................................................................10
7. ELECTRICAL CONNECTION .....................................................................................................................11
8. ENERGY MODELLING ................................................................................................................................ 12

8.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 12
8.2 ENERGY LOSSES................................................................................................................................................12
8.3 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
8.4 TURBINE EFFICIENCY.......................................................................................................................................... 13
9. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES..........................................................................................................................14
9.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 14
9.2 HYDROLOGY ....................................................................................................................................................14
9.3 FLOOD DEFENCE............................................................................................................................................... 14
9.4 FISHERIES.........................................................................................................................................................15
9.5 NAVIGATION.....................................................................................................................................................15
9.6 LICENSING........................................................................................................................................................15
10. RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION......................................................................................................... 16
11. COSTS AND ECONOMICS.......................................................................................................................... 16

11.1 COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................................................................................ 16
11.2 VALUE OF ELECTRICITY................................................................................................................................... 18
12. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................19
ANNEX A : Energy Model methodology and print-out
ANNEX B : Layout drawings
H/Final Report minimised.doc i

ANNEX C : Budget Quotation from DHPL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A feasibility study into the reinstatement of a water turbine in the turbine house adjacent to Guildford
Mill has been completed by IT Power Ltd, with inputs from Derwent Hydroelectric Power Ltd and
Cooper and Withycombe Structural Engineers of Guildford.
The site has excellent potential and is ideally located for providing educational and public awareness
benefits to the wider community. The turbine would generate at least 260,000 kWh per year of
electricity to feed into the local electricity distribution network, supplying enough energy for 50
typical households.
Structural Survey
The Mill is a Grade I listed building. A structural survey of the turbine house, including diver survey,
was completed by Cooper and Withycombe. The key conclusions were:
• The upper part of the building and roof structure are in reasonably good condition, with a few
defects to be addressed.
• The diver reported that the submerged intake chamber is in good condition and the submerged
tailrace chamber and turbine draft tube showed no signs of structural decay.
• The main area of concern is corrosion to the underside of the steel beams supporting the floor
above the turbine pit. This reduces their current load bearing capacity, and in the longer term
may lead to collapse of the floor.
In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended:
• Casting of a new reinforced concrete floor above the old floor, supported by new beams spanning
the building.
• Installation of two new galvanised steel support beams above the turbine.
• Provision of a stainless steel mesh below the existing slab to prevent debris from the old floor
falling into the turbine chamber.
The Original Turbine

The 1930 turbine was supplied to Guildford Corporation by Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon of Kendal as
Order No. 3718. It is an Open-flume Francis turbine rated at 68hp at 6ft head. Following its removal
in 1990, the turbine is now on display at Dapdune Wharf in Guildford. The draft tube is still in situ in
the bottom of the turbine pit.
Availability of Head and Flow

The available fall at the site was measured during the site survey as 1.90m (when the prevailing flow
was 3.0m3/sec). Due to various losses that will arise when running the turbine, it is recommended that
the design head for the scheme be considered as 1.70m. High flow events sufficient to cause major
head loss are relatively rare on the Wey, and should not have a critical effect on the energy output of
the scheme. Of greater importance is the extent of low flow periods, and whether these will worsen
with climate change and increased abstraction.
Flow data from Tilford was used to develop the long-term flow duration curve for Guildford. The key
values to note are:
Qmean Average Flow 5.66 m3/sec

Q95 Flow exceeded 95% of the time 2.24 m3/sec
Q50 Median Flow – flow exceeded 50% of the time 4.28 m3/sec
H/Final Report minimised.doc ii

These show that the Wey does not experience major fluctuations in flow (Q 10 being less than five
times Q95) and sustains a reasonable flow even in dry months.
Turbine Options
The principal options for generating hydro-electric power at the site are as follows:
• Reinstall the existing turbine - this turbine could be refurbished and reinstated but would require
significant work to overhaul and replace the guide vanes and operating mechanism.
• Install a similar second-hand turbine - an almost identical turbine removed from a scheme in
Ireland has been identified as being available which is in significantly better condition than the
Dapdune Wharf machine.
• Install a new Kaplan turbine - although the ex-factory cost of a new machine would not be
prohibitive, the cost of major structural changes to the listed building is likely to greatly exceed an
acceptable budget for the work.
Since the available flow in the river and size of existing intake will limit the scheme to being no larger
than with the old turbine, it is recommended that the most cost-effective route forward from technical,
economic, environmental, and planning standpoints will be to reinstate the old machine, or an identical
model.
Screening
Problems with debris can typically constitute 90% of the maintenance activity, so investment in a
robust screening system is essential. Although the scheme could be brought into operation with the
existing screen in place, it is recommended that a new screen and automatic cleaner be procured for
the site. There are two main restrictions which will limit the choice of cleaning device:
1. Space is severely restricted by the presence of the road bridge, turbine house and mill building
around the intake.
2. The visual impact needs to be minimised at the site.
Two main options would suit these restrictions: a rake-and-chain cleaner is a common solution, but a
sideways scraper system may offer advantages in disposing of the debris.
Electrical Connection
EDF Energy have confirmed the working status of the 3-phase meter in the turbine house and its
connection to the local sub-station via a 125 kVA rated cable, which is more than sufficient for taking
the 35kW from this scheme.
Environmental Issues and Licensing

The Environment Agency have confirmed that reinstatement of a turbine at Guildford would require
only Land Drainage Consent. However, should modifications be made to the adjoining sluice gates,
this may require an impoundment license. In considering the license, the Environment Agency’s main
areas of concern will be:
Hydrology - Operation of the turbine will result in a small drop in upstream water level. The proposal
is to operate the scheme such that there is a minimum depth of 70 mm of water passing over the weir
at all times. This will equate to 300 litres/second.
Flood Defence - the replacement of the two sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house with a single
sluice may be necessary to compensate for the small flows taken through the turbine pit in flood
conditions.
Fisheries - the EA would be very interested if there was an opportunity to install an eelpass at
Millmead as part of this project; a key requirement would be to ensure that the turbine screen was
H/Final Report minimised.doc iii

sufficient to exclude adult eels migrating downstream. The slow-running Gilkes turbine is a preferred
option due to its good fisheries track record in UK rivers.
Energy output
A spreadsheet model was developed for predicting the annual electrical energy output of the scheme.
Figure 15 illustrates the resulting Head, Flow and Power calculations all superimposed on to the Flow
Duration Curve. The annual energy output of the scheme is the area under the power curve.
The model concluded that using the old Gilkes turbine would lead to an electrical output of 265,000
kWh/year, at a turbine load factor of 85%. A modern double-regulated Kaplan propeller turbine would
yield 275,000 kWh/year, only a 4.5% improvement over the Gilkes machine.
Figure 1 Head, Flow and Power calculations

45
2.20
2.10
40 2.00
1.90
1.80
35
1.70
1.60
30 1.50
Flows m3/s, Power kWe
1.40
1.30
25
Head (m)
1.20
1.10
FDC
20 1.00
Turbine flow
0.90
Electrical power Energy per year = 270MWh
0.80
15
HDC 0.70
Turbine net head 0.60
10 0.50
0.40
0.30
5
0.20
0.10
0 0.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Exceedance
Cost estimates
Derwent Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, was invited to submit a
budget costing, based on installing a refurbished Gilkes Francis turbine. Their quote for supply and
installation of the electro-mechanical equipment came to £120,500. This does not include remedial
works to strengthen the building and correct a range of wear-and-tear defects, nor any costs related to
grid connection or modification of the sluice gates next to the turbine house.
Value of the power

The value of the electricity generated has been estimated on the basis of a special contract to be
negotiated with one of the electricity supply companies. This would enable the Council to sell the
power at a premium rate enhanced by the Renewables Obligation, then buy it back at cost price to
offset energy otherwise bought from their contracted supplier. The net value of the energy in this
model can be put at 6.5-7.5 pence/kWh, hence the revenue from the scheme will beworth £16,500 -
19,000 per year.
H/Final Report minimised.doc iv

1.INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a feasibility study into the reinstatement of a water turbine in the
turbine house adjacent to Guildford Mill on the River Wey. As described in this report, the site has
excellent potential for providing a substantial renewable energy supply and is ideally located for
providing educational and public awareness benefits to the wider community. The turbine would
generate at least 260,000 kWh per year of electricity to feed into the local electricity distribution
network, supplying enough energy for 50 typical households.
The work has been undertaken by IT Power Ltd of Chineham, Hampshire, with inputs from Derwent
Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, and Cooper and Withycombe
Structural Engineers of Guildford.
1.1Background
Guildford Mill was historically a corn mill, eventually with 3 waterwheels installed. The current
building dates from 1770, extended in 1851. The building is now Grade I listed, hence any
development work at the site has to be in keeping with this status.
Following the decline in corn-grinding, the building was bought by Guildford Corporation and
converted to a waterworks. Two early turbines were installed in 1897 to operate water pumps, and
these were replaced in 1930 with a Francis turbine from Gilbert, Gilkes and Gordon, one of hundreds
installed around the UK in the early part of the 20th century. This operated satisfactorily until 1952,
when electric pumps were installed alongside the turbine house. The water turbine fell into disuse,
finally being removed off-site in 1990 to allow flood water to pass through the turbine pit.
Figure 2 Guildford Mill and turbine house , September 2003
2.SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1Overview
Figure 3 illustrates the layout of the River Wey in the vicinity of the mill and navigation lock. The
flow in the river can pass from the upstream level to downstream at three locations: the EA sluices [1],
the boathouse weir and sluices [2] & [3], or the millhouse [4]. A small amount of flow is also passed
by the operation of the lock. These flow control structures are managed by the National Trust in
consultation with the Environment Agency in order to maintain the correct water level for navigation
and to discharge flood flows downstream.
Figure 3 River Wey at Guildford
2.2Hydraulic Structures
The existing structures used to manage the river are marked on Figure 3 and depicted in Figure 4.
They can be summarised as follows:
1. Two manually operated sluice gates owned by the Environment Agency, each of width 1.5m,
allowing some overspill into the narrow channel downstream.

2. A fixed concrete weir opposite the boathouse, with a crest of length of 9.1m set at 31.117m
above ordnance datum (AOD).
3. Three manual sluice gates adjacent to the weir providing a total overspill width of 3m when
closed. The top of the gates is 130mm above the crest of the weir.
4. Two manual sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house, spanning the 2.7m wide channel.
Except in flood conditions, flow through this channel is regulated by stop logs inserted on top
of the main sluice gates
5. In addition, it is currently possible to raise the three main inlet gates to the turbine house to
allow some flow to discharge through the empty turbine pit. With a turbine reinstated, this
would no longer be possible.
Figure 4 Flow control structures
Boathouse weir and sluices EA sluices Millhouse sluices
2.2.1Operation
According to the sluice operator, Vince Locatelli, the traditional legal responsibility for discharging
flood waters remains with the owner of the mill, i.e. Guildford Borough Council. However, the duty
now in practice falls upon the National Trust because they are responsible for maintaining the water
levels in the Wey Navigation.
Day-to-day fine level control is achieved with the stop-logs above the turbine house sluices [4]. The
official protocol for discharging high flows is to open the boathouse sluices first, then the mill sluices,
and finally the EA sluices. In practice, the EA sluices are the easiest to operate and the boathouse
sluices the hardest, hence the actual procedure used is the reverse of the stated one. Opening the
turbine sluices is a last resort in flood conditions.
2.3The Turbine House

The important elements of the turbine house are:
• an angled bar screen to trap debris, guarding the intake to the powerhouse which has a width
of 4.28m and water depth 1.6m.
• an intake chamber underneath the turbine house, with a floor sloping down towards the inlet
gates.
• three main inlet gates of depth 1.87m across the middle of the turbine house spanning the
4.96m width of the turbine chamber.
• a turbine chamber (or ‘pit’), 4.96m wide by 3.69m long with a central 1.6m diameter hole in
the floor discharging leakage water through the old turbine draft tube; the ceiling of the pit is
just above upstream water level, and the floor is set at downstream water level.
• a submerged tailwater chamber, returning the turbine discharge back to the river.
The original drawings for the installation (supplied by Gilkes) are included in Figure 5 with
photographs in Figure 6.
Other important features of the turbine house are:
• access into the turbine pit through the gap between the old turbine support beams; the gap is of
0.77m wide by 3.78m long.
• a lifting beam installed below the roof, spanning the width of the turbine house and passing
over the centre of the turbine shaft.

• stop-log slots upstream of the trash-rack for dewatering the entire intake area, with stop-logs
stacked in the powerhouse. This can only be achieved by constructing intermediate supports
for the stop-logs, so that three stop-logs span the full 7m width.
Figure 5 Original installation drawings for Gilkes order no. 3718

Side elevation
Front elevation
Figure 6 Guildford turbine house

Trashrack View across turbine sluices to turbine pit covers
Draft tube entry View back towards intake
2.4Structural Survey
A structural survey of the building, including diver survey, was completed by Cooper and
Withycombe, with report attached separately. The key conclusions are as follows:
• The upper part of the building and roof structure are in reasonably good condition, with a few
defects to be addressed.
• The diver reported that the submerged intake chamber between trashrack and sluice gates is in
good condition.
• Similarly, the submerged tailrace chamber and turbine draft tube showed no signs of structural
decay.
• The main area of concern is corrosion to the underside of the steel beams supporting the floor
above the turbine pit. This reduces their current load bearing capacity, and in the longer term
may lead to collapse of the floor.
In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended:
• Removal of the two innermost turbine support beams.

• Installation of two new galvanised steel support beams of minimum section 203x203 UC above
the turbine, allowing a gap of 1000 mm between them.
• Casting of a new reinforced concrete floor above the old floor, supported by new beams spanning
the building.
• Provision of a stainless steel mesh below the existing slab to prevent debris from the old floor
falling into the turbine chamber.
2.5The Original Turbine

The 1930 turbine was supplied to Guildford Corporation by Gilbert Gilkes and Gordon of Kendal to
the following specification:
Order No. 3718

Type Open-flume, vertical-axis, Francis
Size 42”C
Rated Head 6.0 ft (1.82m)
Rated Speed 75 rpm
Rated Flow 123.67 cu.ft/sec (3.5 m3/sec)
Shaft Power 68 hp (51 kW)
Following its removal in 1990, the turbine is now on display at Dapdune Wharf in Guildford. The
draft tube is still in situ in the bottom of the turbine pit.
3.SITE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS
Key observations from the site survey with regard to the technical feasibility of reinstating a turbine
are as follows:
1 The cross sectional area of the flow passing through the trash screen is:
4.28m × 1.6m = 6.85m2.
To minimise hydraulic losses, it is generally advisable to keep intake velocities below 0.5m/s.
This would imply a maximum volume flow rate of around
0.5 × 6.85 = 3.4m3/sec.
Since the existing turbine was rated for 3.5 m3/sec, one can conclude that the flow capacity of any
new plant will not be any greater than the existing turbine (without major reconstruction of the
turbine house.
2 A 3-phase supply rated at 100 Amps per phase is available in the powerhouse –
presumably for driving the old electric pumps. This should be sufficient for taking the 3-
phase 415V output from the turbine, to be confirmed by SEEBOARD, hence avoiding the
laying of cables outside the turbine house.
3 There is a lack of space in the turbine house to locate a gearbox and generator beside the
turbine, but plenty of space up to the pitched roof, so the most feasible arrangement of the
powertrain would be stacked vertically.
4 The gap between the floor beams for lowering the old turbine is extremely small (0.77m)
and it is still unknown exactly how the runner was removed in 1990. In the context of the
structural recommendations, a wider access space of 1m should be accommodated as part
of the measures to modify and strengthen the floor. This would allow easier access for
installing and maintaining the turbine.
4.AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW
4.1Head
The available fall at the site was measured during the site survey as 1.90m (when the prevailing flow
was 3.0m3/sec).
This is likely to be the maximum head available at the site. In reality the head will reduce for three
main reasons:
1 The flow over a weir is dependent on the level of water flowing over its crest. Since water
will in future be drawn through the turbine, by definition less water will then be passing
over the weir and sluices. Therefore the upstream water level will fall slightly i.e. the
turbine will ‘draw down’ the upstream water level. Since the weir at Guildford is
relatively narrow, this draw down is a significant percentage of the available head.

2 As flow in the river increases, the downstream level in the river will tend to increase faster
than the upstream level. This means the net head available will reduce as flow increases.
However, the proportion of the year when this is a serious constraint will be limited.
3 As the water for the turbine flows up the mill leat and through the trash-rack, it will incur
some small hydraulic losses en route, such that the turbine will not see the full head
prevailing at the lock. It may prove necessary to dredge out the mill leat in order to reduce
these losses to an acceptable level.
In conclusion, as justified in more detail in Section 7, it is recommended that the design head for
the scheme be considered as 1.70m.
4.1.1Level Data
A level gauge is installed in the pool downstream of the turbine house, providing 15 minute readings
for the Environment Agency. Five years’ of data was obtained from the Environment Agency (1998-
2003) and compared with flow data over the same period.
It was clear that both flow and level gauges are prone to malfunction or erratic behaviour, particularly
in high flow conditions, and it was impossible to develop a consistent correlation between level and
flow data.
However, by comparing the readings from selected flood events, cross-checked with eye-witness
accounts from the sluice operator, it was possible to estimate the head vs. flow characteristic of the
site. This is illustrated as a Head Duration Curve on Figure 7. This shows how the available head
varies for each flow on the Flow Duration Curve.
The key conclusion from Figure 7 is that high flow events sufficient to cause major head loss are in
fact relatively rare on the Wey, hence the loss of head will not have a critical effect on the energy
output of the scheme. Of greater importance is the extent of low flow periods, and whether these will
worsen with climate change and increased abstraction.
4.2Flow data
There are three relevant flow gauging stations on the Wey, at Tilford, Guildford and Weybridge. The
gauging station at Guildford was only installed in 1996.
The gauging station at Guildford is prone to failure or providing erroneous readings and therefore
could not be used to develop a flow duration curve for the site. The only year with a nearly complete
data set is 1999, and the annual hydrograph of daily flows is shown in Figure 8, illustrating the typical
rise and fall of river flows through the year.
Previous work1 has shown there to be a good correlation between Tilford and Guildford gauging
stations, using the ratio of catchment areas (1.75) to infer flows at Guildford from data at Tilford.
Hence the Tilford data was used to develop the long-term flow duration curve illustrated in Figure 7.
The key values to note are:
Qmean Average Flow 5.66 m3/sec

Q50 Median Flow – flow exceeded 50% of the time 4.28 m3/sec
1 Guildford Mini Hydro Pre-feasibility Technical Assessment, J Marques Feb 2003

The Flow duration curve is relatively flat, with Q 10 being less than five times Q95, demonstrating that
the Wey does not experience major fluctuations in flow and sustains a reasonable flow even in dry
months, as is also clear from the hydrograph of Figure 8.
Figure 7 River Wey in Guildford:

Flow Duration Curve 1954/55-2001/02, Estimated Head Duration Curve
40 2.00
1.95
1.90
1.85
1.80
35 1.75
1.70
1.65
1.60
1.55
30 1.50
1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
25 1.25
1.20
1.15
Flows m3/s
1.10
Head (m)
FLOW 1.05
20 1.00
0.95
GROSS HEAD 0.90
0.85
0.80
15 0.75
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
10 0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
5 0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0 0.00
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
% Exceedance
Figure 8 Annual Hydrograph 1999 (Guildford data)
40
35
30
25
Cumecs
20
15
10
0
0 30 61 91 122 152 183 213 243 274 304 335 365
5.TURBINE OPTIONS
The principal options for generating hydro-electric power at the site are as follows:

5.1Reinstall existing turbine

The 1930s Gilkes turbine was inspected in situ at Dapdune Wharfe. The complete turbine should
consist of:
• Twenty guide vanes (650mm high and 345mm deep) placed in a ring around the runner to
divert the water inwards at the correct angle.
• A ‘Francis’ runner (diameter 1575mm) and shaft (diameter 120mm).
• A lower casing (circular diameter 1.9m) to support the guide vanes and locate into the draft
tube.
• Upper casing (circular diameter 1.9m) to support the top of the guide vanes and hold the lower
turbine bearing.
• Linkages connecting the guide vanes into a ring at mid-height, enabling all vanes to be rotated
in unison (no longer present at Dapdune).
• A Guide vane operating shaft and drive rod , mounted to the top ring of the draft tube, and
passing up into the turbine house which, when rotated, opens or closes the guide vanes to
regulate the flow entering the runner (no longer present).
• A draft tube (exit diffuser) still embedded in the turbine chamber.
Figure 9 The 1930 Gilkes turbine at Dapdune Wharf
The brief inspection revealed that:
• The runner is in adequate condition to be restored to working order; it appears to be fabricated

rather than a single casting, which is unusual for this design
• All but two of the guide vanes have had their connecting linkage broken off during dis-
assembly; these would all have to be replaced with new vanes, cast from a pattern made using
an intact vane
• The shaft and upper and lower casings appear to be undamaged
• The draft tube was reported by the diver survey as being in good condition
• The guide vane operating mechanism is missing and would need to be reconstructed from old
drawings
In conclusion, this turbine could be refurbished and reinstated but would require significant work to
replace the guide vanes and operating mechanism.
Further major components required to complete the system (discussed further in Section 10) will be:
• A mounting frame in the turbine house to transfer the weight of the turbine, and column of
water above it, to the floor beams
• A top thrust bearing
• Gearbox (minimum 1:10 ratio)
• 415V 3-phase generator running at 750, 1000 or 1500 rpm
• Hydraulic actuator to automate the operation of the guide vanes
• Control panel to manage the operation of the turbine
• Grid connection panel with power factor correction to permit synchronisation to , and isolation
from, the grid
• Trashrack and automatic cleaner
5.2Install second-hand turbine

The Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine was one of a standard range supplied by Gilkes between and after the
wars. An almost identical turbine removed from a scheme in Ireland has been identified as being
available which is in significantly better condition than the Dapdune Wharf machine.
The turbine is depicted in Figure 10. The cost of obtaining and returning this machine to working
order would be much cheaper than restoring the original turbine, and would allow the National Trust
to retain its exhibit.
Figure 10 Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine
5.3Install new turbine

The only type of turbine currently available for sites with very low head, as at Guildford, is a
propeller-type machine. These replaced the open-flume Francis in the 1970s due to their smaller size
and higher operating speed, and manufacturers such as Gilkes have long since stopped supplying their
old design of turbines.
The propeller turbine can be realised in a number of configurations, with the axis of the turbine
vertical, horizontal, or slanted. However, one such element of all these machines is the need for a long
draft tube to guarantee high efficiency. It is this feature which would prove extremely difficult to
accommodate within the existing structures at Guildford Mill.
Inquiries have been made with three leading suppliers of small propeller machines – NHT, Hydrolink,
and Waterpumps Oy. The WpOy machines are not suitable for this site because they can only run at
fixed flow (i.e. unregulated). NHT and Hydrolink can offer very similar vertical Kaplan machines. The
configuration proposed by NHT is depicted in Figure 11.
Although the ex-factory cost of a new machine would not be prohibitive, the cost of major structural
changes to the listed building and detailed consultation with planners to determine what would be
acceptable, is likely to greatly exceed an acceptable budget for the work. It is also probable that more
complex negotiations with Environment Agency with regard to fish protection will be likely given the
Environment Agency’s perception of this type of technical arrangement.

Figure 11 NHT vertical-axis Kaplan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A A
B B
C C
MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF
COMMENTS QUANTITY
D D
DESCRIPTION DRAWN BY & DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT DRAWING No.

E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5.4Conclusion on turbine choice

Since it has already been confirmed that the available flow in the river and size of existing intake will
already limit the scheme to being no larger than with the old turbine, it is recommended that the most
cost-effective route forward from technical, economic, environmental, and planning standpoints will
be to reinstate the old machine, or an identical model.
6.SCREENING
The screen is an extremely important component of the whole scheme, and one of the more expensive
items. Problems with debris can typically constitute 90% of the maintenance activity, so investment in
a robust design will pay for itself in the long run.
6.1Existing Screen
The original vertical bar screen is still in place, protecting the intake to the turbine house. The screen
is set at approximately 25 degrees to the vertical, located against a step at the bottom but otherwise
held in place only by gravity. The bars are 9mm thick, with a spacing of 22mm (centre-to-centre
spacing of 31mm) which is unusually narrow for an installation of the 1930s. It may even date back to
the previous turbines installed in 1897. The screen bars have rusted but are still in a usable condition.
The screen is in seven sections, each 610mm wide, spanning the intake width of 4280mm. One of the
seven sections has been removed and is presumed lost. Water depth at the screen was measured at
1660mm.
The open area of the screen can therefore be calculated to be 5.5m2.

The screen would have collected large quantities of trash which must have been removed manually by
raking it up on to the concrete platform, before pushing it sideways over the adjacent spillway.
A further problem at the site is caused by the road bridge immediately in front of the turbine intake.
Pipes running under the bridge below water line cause debris to accumulate here, eventually creating a
severe blockage to the flow over time. The only solution to this would be to trap the debris earlier on
along the mill cut.
Figure 12 Existing trash screen and blockage caused by the bridge
6.2Screening Options
Although the scheme could be brought into operation with the existing screen in place (and seventh
panel replaced), it is recommended that a new screen and automatic cleaner be procured for the site.
The bar-spacing of 22mm is unnecessarily fine for both the original turbine or a replacement propeller
turbine, and could sensibly be increased to 35-40mm for a new screen. For example, a new 60 kW
project at Betchworth on the Mole is implementing two propeller turbines with a 40mm bar screen.
The screen would preferably be of galvanised or stainless steel construction.
It is strongly recommended that an automatic cleaning system be installed to ensure the screen is kept
unblocked at all times of the year. There are two main restrictions which will limit the choice of
cleaning device:
1. Space is severely restricted by the presence of the road bridge, turbine house and mill building
around the intake.
2. The visual impact needs to be minimised at the site.
However, the presence of the sluices adjacent to the turbine house offer a convenient route for
disposing of the trash downstream.
There are two main options which would suit these restrictions:
a) A rake-and-chain cleaner, in which a bar is moved up the screen by a chain drive at each
end. The bar deposits the collected debris in a channel running the length of the screen. The
channel is flushed by a water supply (probably pumped), washing the debris towards the side
spillway. Such a mechanism is compact and largely below water, although the top of the
chain drives would be visible. A rake-and-chain cleaner in Germany is depicted in Figure
13a.
b) Sideways scraper. To date, this is a relatively uncommon design, but is supplied by at least
one leading European manufacturer. In this concept, the bars of the screen are aligned

horizontally rather than vertically, The cleaner consists of a bar-scraper running from top to
bottom of the screen, suspended from a chassis which moves along a track running the width
of the screen. To clean the screen, the scraper is moved across the width of the screen. The
debris is pushed sideways into the path of the flow passing over the side spillway. One such
system is depicted in Figure 13b.
The disadvantage of both these designs is that, unlike the more common robotic rakes, part of the
mechanism remains permanently underwater, hence is difficult to access if a problem arises. Since a
robotic rake (c) is unlikely to be acceptable at this site on grounds of visual intrusion, the two options
proposed above offer the next best workable solution.
Figure 13 Screen cleaning options

(a) Rake and chain (b) Sideways scraper (c) Robotic arm
7.ELECTRICAL CONNECTION
The turbine will drive a generator running at 415 Volts, three phases. The old turbine house already
has a three-phase supply and meter rated at 100 Amps per phase. The maximum output of the turbine
is expected to be less than 65 Amps per phase, hence it will be possible to connect directly to the grid
at this point. All the necessary switch gear for establishing a connection to G59 standards will be
incorporated into the turbine control panel.
EDF Energy (who took over SEEBOARD) are the electricity supply company responsible for the local
network in Guildford. They have confirmed the working status of the 3-phase meter and its connection
to the local sub-station via a 125 kVA rated cable, which is more than sufficient for taking the 35kW
from this scheme.
An electrical schematic summarising the connection is shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 Electrical Schematic
Control Panel
Isolator REC
Meter
Generator Parallelling M.C.B.
Contactor
3-phase 3-phase
+
Neutral 3p + N
Point of
100A
connection
Generator Mains switch-fuse
with REC
Trips Trips

8.ENERGY MODELLING
8.1Introduction
A spreadsheet model was developed for predicting the annual electrical energy output of the scheme.
This has to be achieved by an iterative process because turbine head and flow are interdependent i.e.
net head available at the turbine is dependent upon the flow being drawn (since head losses increase
with flow), while the flow through the turbine is a function of the net head across it.
8.2Energy Losses
The head losses that need to be accounted for in the model are caused by:
• Draw down of the upstream level by reducing the flow over the weir
• The gradient of the flow as it passes from the weir to the turbine house
• Losses through the trashrack
8.2.1Draw down
Draw down can be calculated by modelling the headwater level at the site with all sluices closed and
drawing no flow, then using the weir equation on the fixed weir to determine the new upstream level
once the turbine flow has been subtracted from the gross river flow.
8.2.2Channel loss
The channel is roughly 6 m wide and 150 m long and between 1m and 1.5m deep along its length.
Head loss can be estimated using Mannings equation for open channels, although this is highly
dependent on the figure chosen for the roughness coefficient of the channel material.
In summary, if one assumes a depth of only one metre and a coefficient at the high end of the range
(n=0.04), the head loss at design flow could be as high as 100 mm. By taking an average depth of 1.3
m and a lower coefficient (n=0.02) the loss would be only 12 mm.
8.2.3Trashrack loss
Head loss through the trashrack should be negligible if it is clean. In practice, there will be some loss
caused by the accumulation of debris, although this will be minimised by a good automatic rake.
8.2.4Conclusion
In the energy calculations undertaken here, it has been pessimistically assumed that the combined
channel and trashrack loss will be 100 mm in design conditions. Reducing this figure to 50 mm would
result in a 4.5 % increase in annual energy capture.
8.3Results
The spreadsheet print-out is enclosed as Annex A with further notes on the methodology used. Figure
15 illustrates the resulting Head, Flow and Power calculations all superimposed on to the Flow
Duration Curve, with individual plots as follows:
Qriver The Flow Duration Curve

Hgross The estimated Head Duration Curve, based on 100% of the flow passing over the weir
Qturbine The flow drawn by the turbine
Hnet The net head at the turbine, allowing for head losses and draw-down at the weir.
P The electrical power produced, a function of Qturbine, Hnet and the turbine efficiency

Figure 15 Head, Flow and Power calculations

45
2.20
2.10
40 2.00
1.90
1.80
35
1.70
1.60
30 1.50
Flows m3/s, Power kWe
1.40
1.30
25
Head (m)
1.20
1.10
FDC
20 1.00
Turbine flow
0.90
Electrical power Energy per year = 270MWh
0.80
15
HDC 0.70
Turbine net head 0.60
10 0.50
0.40
0.30
5
0.20
0.10
0 0.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% Exceedance
8.4Turbine efficiency
Figure 15 illustrates the power curve assuming that the Gilkes 42”C turbine has been reinstated. This
utilises the Gilkes turbine characteristic of Figure 16 and assumes a gearbox/generator efficiency of
80% and overall availability of 98%. This leads to an electrical output of 265,000 kWh/year, at a
turbine load factor of 85%.
Also plotted on Figure 15 is the typical efficiency curve of a modern double-regulated Kaplan
propeller turbine. A turbine with this characteristic would yield 275,000 kWh/year, a 4.5%
improvement over the Gilkes machine.
Figure 16 Turbine part-flow efficiency curves.

100%
Gilkes Francis
90%
Kaplan 0.82
80%
0.75 0.81
70%
0.62
60%
% Efficiency
50%
40%
0.36
30%
20%
10%
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Q/Qo

9.ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
9.1Introduction
The Environment Agency is the principle government agency responsible for granting permission for
the various aspects of the scheme, covering:
• Flood Defence
• Fisheries
• Land drainage
• Navigation
• Modifications to weirs or sluices
• General impacts of the installation process
Their main areas of concern in redeveloping Guildford Mill are summarised below.
9.2Hydrology
The Environment Agency are concerned that the turbine will not draw excessive flows through the
turbine house to the detriment of other reaches of the river. The critical period is usually during low
flows. Fortunately, as illustrated by the FDC, the Wey sustains a reasonable flow all year round,
almost always above 2 m3/sec.
In low flow conditions, the upstream level is such that no water passes over sluices 1 and 3 in Figure
4, and the river is shared between the weir and the turbine sluices.
With the turbine reinstated, the stretch of river affected by this increased diversion of flow down the
mill race is limited to the 150 m section between the weir pool and the downstream mill pond. The
proposal is to operate the scheme such that there is a minimum depth of 70 mm of water passing over
the weir at all times. This will equate to 300 litres/second. It is further suggested that at least 100
litres/sec is maintained over the turbine sluices as a continuous bywash. As a comparison, there are
many UK schemes which sustain no more then 50 mm depth over the corresponding weir.
This ‘reserved’ flow is illustrated in Figure 15 as the difference between the FDC and the turbine flow.
9.3Flood Defence
A discussion with David van Beesten (Operations Team Leader of Environment Agency, Frimley)
confirmed that flooding is an ongoing concern in Guildford and further flood alleviation measures are
being considered in the light of the flooding of November 2000.
Since the turbine pit and draft tube are currently being utilised as an emergency flow passage during
flood conditions, he was concerned that the loss of this facility would need to be compensated for
elsewhere – and may well be a condition of the licensing application.
This point is debatable since the sluice operator Vince Locatelli reported that opening the turbine
sluices in reality made little difference: the trashrack would immediately block solid with debris
allowing almost no flow to pass through. He purely did so to avoid public complaints that ‘a sluice
was closed’ with the river in flood. Nevertheless he suggested that the replacement of the two sluice
gates adjacent to the turbine house with a single sluice would more than compensate for the small
flows taken through the turbine pit. Replacement of these sluices with an automated drop-down gate
would in fact have a number of advantages, as follows:
• Increased flood capacity

• Fine level control (replacing the manual removal of stop logs at these sluices)
• Unimpeded discharge of trash downstream
• Attractive bywash for fish deterred by the screen

• Easier operation for the sluice operator
However a new sluice gate would significantly add to the costs of the scheme as a whole, but David
van Beesten indicated that the Environment Agency may be able to collaborate in the work, and the
end result would be a flood defence asset for the Council with wider benefits.
9.4Fisheries
Discussions were held with Steve Sheridan, Fisheries Officer with the Environment Agency at
Frimley, with regard to the implications on fisheries of reinstating the turbine. The overall picture on
this stretch of the Wey is that:
• The river has a high quality coarse fish population

• There have been attempts to re-introduce salmon and sea trout through stocking programmes in
the north Wey, and some adult fish had returned despite the lack of fish passes. This programme
has stopped, but the EA still have aspirations to improve the Wey in order to encourage migratory
species.
• The biggest current concern is the eel population, which is in decline. An eelpass was installed at
Stoke Mill downstream and the EA would be very interested if there was an opportunity to install
an eelpass at Millmead as part of this project. A key requirement would be to ensure that the
turbine screen was sufficient to exclude adult eels migrating downstream.
From the fisheries perspective, the slow-running Gilkes turbine is a preferred option due to its long
track record of hundreds of installations operating for many decades in UK rivers without impacting
on fish populations.
9.5Navigation
9.5.1Side velocities
Boats arriving at the lock must navigate past the streamlines tending to draw them over to the weir on
the left-hand bank, then past the flow diverted to their right up the millstream. This situation will not
change when running the turbine, only the relative strengths of the diverted flows. The entrance to the
mill cut is broad and flared, and the velocities induced will be well below those likely to cause any
concern. Boat owners do moor in the mill cut, but it is impossible for boats to approach the turbine
intake due to the presence of the road bridge to the Yvonne Arnaud Theatre.
9.5.2Water levels
Unlike the Thames, there is no statutory headwater level to be sustained above Guildford Lock. The
level is maintained by the National Trust based on experience.
Operation of the turbine will result in a small drop in upstream water level, since less flow is passing
over the weir. It will be essential to sustain the upstream water level such that boats can safely pass
over the sill of the lock – for which a depth of at least 2’ 6” is required. Discussions with John
Gibson, Navigation Manager at the National Trust (Dapdune Wharf) indicated that they generally
operate a level of 3’ above sill level and would not be concerned by a small drop caused by the turbine
such that 70 mm was still passing over the weir.
9.6Licensing
There are three licences that can apply to a hydropower scheme

• Abstraction Licence, if water is being permanently or temporarily removed from a water source
• Impoundment Licence, if changes are being made to structures which impound water, such as
weirs and sluices
• Land Drainage Consent, for any works being carried out in a ‘main channel’
The Environment Agency have confirmed that reinstatement of a turbine at Guildford would require
only Land Drainage Consent.
However, should modifications be made to the adjoining sluice gates, this may require an
impoundment license.
10.RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATION
As a result of the investigations completed, and the forgoing analysis, the following specifications are
recommended for the scheme:
1. Turbine
Reconditioned Gilkes 42”C open Francis turbine, rated at 50 kW (shaft) on 1.75 m of head
2. Regulation
Guide vane regulation operated by hydraulic power pack in response to upstream water level
3. Gearbox
1:20 ratio vertically-mounted gearbox with parallel input/output shafts, rated at 75 kW or
greater
4. Generator
Induction generator, rated at 55-60 kW at 1500 rpm, generating 3-phase at 415 Volts.
5. Control Panel
Panel with full display of parameters, start-up and shutdown, automatic and manual override,
guide-vane control, G59 trips, and grid synchronisation.
6. Trashrack
Galvanised or stainless steel bar screen with bar spacing of 35 mm covering an intake of
dimensions 4280 mm wide by 1750 mm deep
7. Cleaner
Automatic trashrack cleaner and control panel for raking the above screen and depositing trash
into the side spillway.
11.COSTS AND ECONOMICS
11.1Cost estimates
11.1.1Equipment supply and installation

Derwent Hydroelectric Power Limited, a registered Clear Skies installer, was invited to submit a
budget costing for the equipment supply to the project, based on installing a refurbished Gilkes
Francis turbine. Their quotation is attached in Annex C.

The cost breakdown is as follows:
1. Refurbishment and supply of Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine (excluding draft tube)
£27,000
2. Supply as new-build of:
- replacement shaft
- draft tube connecting ring
- turbine support frame
- top thrust bearing and bottom bearing
- guide vane operation with hydraulic power pack £23,000
3. vertically mounted gearbox (ratio 22:1 rated at 55 kW) £ 5,500
4. 1500 rpm vertically mounted induction generator (rated at 55 kW) £ 2,000
5. Control panel, level sensor, grid connection panel £ 8,000
6. Power Factor correction equipment2 £ 2,000
7. Galvanised steel trashrack £ 4,000
8. Automatic trashrack cleaner and control panel £30,000
9. Detailed design and provision of drawings £ 6,500
10. Installation and commissioning £12,500
TOTAL: £120,500
11.1.2Civil Works
As part of remedial works to strengthen the building and correct a range of wear-and-tear defects,
additional work will be undertaken to install the turbine support beams. This activity will be costed
separately.
11.1.3Sluice Gate
As part of the licence negotiations to obtain land drainage consent for the scheme, it may be necessary
to replace the sluice gates adjacent to the turbine house in collaboration with the Environment Agency.
This is not essential for the operation of the turbine, but would enhance the scheme. A cost for this
work has not yet been identified but, based on similar work, could exceed £50,000, although the
Environment Agency may share this cost.
11.1.4Grid Connection
This will involve only a small amount of work from EDF Energy (SEEBOARD). A formal request
from GBC to EDF Energy is required in order to get a firm grid connection cost, but a budgetary
figure of £5000 should be allowed at this stage.
2Typically an induction generator has a power factor of 0.8 and requires an electronic control to bring into line
with Grid supply norms.
11.2Value of Electricity
11.2.1London Electricity contract

GBC offices at Millmead currently purchase their electricity from London Electricity, of which 60% is
guaranteed to be ‘green’. The tariffs are:
Day-time 3.51 p/kWh

Night 2.36 p/kWh
From Sept-02 to Aug-03, the consumption was 853,186 kWh (of which 511,912 kWh were ‘green’
and 341,274 kWh were ‘brown’). Hence the predicted energy from the hydro-scheme could be used to
replace 76% of the non-renewable portion of annual consumption.
11.2.2Options for selling the power

The most beneficial way of utilising the energy generated by the scheme is to enter into a special
contract with one of the Electricity Supply Companies (eg. London Electricity, npower, etc.).
In such a contract, the owner sells all the electricity generated by the scheme to the supply company.
The supply company can obtain Renewable Obligation Certificates3 (ROCs) for this energy so is
prepared to offer a premium price for it (typically at least 3p/kWh on top of the purchase price of the
electricity).
The site owner then buys back from the supply company the same amount of energy, or the amount of
electricity consumed on site, whichever is the lower. He can buy back the energy at the same rate at
which he sold it, and is not required to pay Climate Change Levy (CCL) charges. The energy
consumed is therefore, in effect, free to the site owner.
Furthermore if the site exports more than it consumes – unlikely in this case - the supply company
will also offer a further premium on the net exported amount because it can obtain Levy Exemption
Certificates (LECs) which can be sold to its business customers to help them avoid paying the full
CCL charge. The value of LECs is variable, but 80% of the CCL charge is generally obtainable.
Depending on the use of the energy, it may be necessary to install a half-hourly meter and telecoms
link so that it can be read remotely. A charge is made for reading and processing the data, currently
around £600 per year.
In summary, although this method is rather complex to appreciate at first glance, it is the most
beneficial way of gaining from the ‘free energy’ generated by the scheme (hence saving on fees to
London Electricity and avoiding the Climate Change Levy), plus gaining from the value of
Renewables Obligation Certificates.
The exact value of the electricity under such a contract (sometimes known as an on-site ROC
purchase contract) can only be determined by requesting a specific company to make an offer for the
power. There is currently very little market experience of such contracts for the relatively small
amounts of power concerned in this case. However the calculations below use indicative numbers
which have been suggested in a discussion with npower.
It should be noted that the typical open market price for the sale of electricity is currently down to
1.7p/kWh or lower. However, over the life of the scheme, it is very likely that the retail value of
electricity will rise. No allowance for such a rise has been made here.
3Electricity generated from renewable sources can be used to obtain Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs)
which all the supply companies need in order to prove they are meeting the governments targets for renewable
energy. ROCs have a market value in the range 3p – 4.5p per kWh which will vary over time depending on how
well these companies are doing in meeting their targets.
In Table 1 the value of the electricity from the scheme has been calculated for the special sell-and-
buy-back contract on the LHS of the table, and compared with a simple sale-of-electricity contract on
the RHS. An averaged day/night unit value for bought and sold electricity has been used.
Assuming pessimistically that the ROC value is only 3p/kWh (rates in 2003 have been in the range 4.5
– 4.8p) then the value of the scheme should exceed £16,500 per year. An export-only contract would
be worth £12,500 per year.
If the ROC value averages 4p/kWh then these figures increase respectively to £19,000 and £15,000.
Table 1 Value of electricity generated by the hydro-scheme

1. Export and buy back 2. Export only
Consumed Exported Total 100% export
Energy generated kWh/year 260000 0 260000 260000
Value of electricity 0.0317 0.017 0.017

Value of ROC's 0.03 0.03 0.03
CCL/LECs 0.0043 0.0034 0.00344
Total unit value £/kWh 0.0660 0.0504 0.05044
Annual value £/year 17171.92 0 17171.92 13114.40

Metering cost £/year 0.00 -600.00 -600.00 -600.00
Net value £/year 16571.92 12514.40
12.CONCLUSIONS
1. The site at Guildford Mill constitutes a technically viable scheme for hydropower generation.
2. The site was designed for a flow rate of 3.5 m 3/sec and this sets a size limitation on the
refurbishment of the scheme.
3. As a Grade I listed building there are also limitations on any modifications proposed to the
building.
4. The original 1930s Gilkes turbine could be refurbished, but it is recommended that the most
cost-effective approach will be to procure a re-conditioned version of the same model of
turbine – one such machine has been identified as being available.
5. A new propeller turbine would generate only 5% more energy than the original machine, and
as well as being more expensive to procure, would require major structural modifications to
the building in order to accommodate the extensive draft tube required.
6. An Abstraction License will not be required for the site, but the works will require Land
Drainage Consent from the Environment Agency. The three principal areas on which the
Environment Agency will seek clarification are: preserving levels for navigation, flood
defence, and fisheries protection.
7. An essential aspect of the scheme design will be to incorporate robust measures for screening
out and removing natural and man-made debris with the minimum of human intervention.
8. The energy model for the scheme predicts that the energy output can be expected to exceed
260,000 kWh/year. The river Wey sustains a consistent flow and the turbine can be expected
to be operating almost all year round. The longest shut-down periods will be in times of high
flood rather than drought.

9. Equipment supply and installation costs have been estimated to be in the region of £120,000.
This excludes the fundamental structural work to be carried out on decaying elements of the
building, any grid connection charges, and the possible replacement of the sluice gates.
10. The value of the electricity generated has been estimated on the basis of a special contract to
be negotiated with one of the electricity supply companies. This would enable the Council to
sell the power at a premium rate enhanced by the Renewables Obligation, then buy it back at
cost price to offset energy otherwise bought from their contracted supplier. The net value of
the energy in this model can be put at 6.5-7.5 pence/kWh, hence the revenue from the scheme
is worth £16,500 - 19,000 per year.

ANNEX A
Energy Model methodology
The spreadsheet model calculates the predicted annual energy output from the scheme, taking into
account all likely losses. The summary methodology is as follows:
1. Determine the FDC

2. Determine or estimate the Head Duration Curve based on all the flow passing over the weir
3. For each value of river flow (Qriver) estimate the flow that will pass through the turbine
(Qturbine)
4. Calculate the draw down in upstream level caused by Qturbine no longer passing over the
weir
5. Calculate the loss of head caused by Qturbine passing through the mill race and trashrack
6. Calculate the net head (Hnet) available at the turbine
7. Calculate the flow drawn by the turbine when H= Hnet
8. Modify the estimated flow values under step 3 by trial and error until Steps 3 and 7 achieve
the same flow figures
9. Multiply together Hnet, Qturbine and the turbine efficiency curve (η vs Q/Qo) in order to
obtain the power generated at each flow rate
10. Plot the Power Exceedance Curve on to the FDC
11. The area under the Power Curve is the annual energy capture
The spreadsheet print-out is shown overleaf.

SPREADSHEET PRINT-OUT
Head Draw Hydraulic Net Head Shaft Elec Pelec x

down loss Power Power time
% Time Qriver Qweir Hgross Hdraw Hloss Hturb Qturb Qturb/Qo Effcy Pmech Pelec kWh
0.5% 37.23 35.111 0.82 0.094 0.041 0.681 2.119 0.641 0.737 10.429 8.34 515
1.0% 28.71 26.193 1.12 0.103 0.058 0.960 2.517 0.761 0.799 18.95 15.16 1608
2.0% 21.22 18.404 1.39 0.115 0.072 1.202 2.816 0.852 0.811 26.94 21.55 2060
3.0% 16.65 13.670 1.55 0.126 0.081 1.347 2.980 0.901 0.809 31.86 25.49 4749
5.0% 13.01 9.909 1.68 0.138 0.087 1.458 3.101 0.938 0.809 35.91 28.73 6508
7.5% 10.89 7.723 1.76 0.148 0.091 1.521 3.167 0.958 0.812 38.38 30.71 6854
10.0% 9.65 6.447 1.80 0.155 0.093 1.556 3.203 0.969 0.816 39.86 31.89 14308
15.0% 8.03 4.783 1.86 0.168 0.096 1.599 3.247 0.982 0.821 41.81 33.44 14840
20.0% 7.09 3.820 1.90 0.177 0.097 1.621 3.270 0.989 0.825 42.90 34.32 15172
25.0% 6.36 3.074 1.92 0.187 0.098 1.637 3.286 0.994 0.828 43.70 34.96 15410
30.0% 5.79 2.493 1.94 0.195 0.099 1.648 3.297 0.997 0.830 44.26 35.41 31240
40.0% 4.97 1.661 1.97 0.212 0.100 1.660 3.309 1.001 0.833 44.90 35.92 31539
50.0% 4.28 0.967 2.00 0.232 0.100 1.665 3.313 1.002 0.834 45.11 36.09 31484
60.0% 3.7 0.394 2.02 0.261 0.099 1.657 3.306 1.000 0.832 44.74 35.79 29706
70.0% 3.25 0.300 2.03 0.245 0.079 1.709 2.950 0.892 0.809 40.04 32.03 26568
80.0% 2.87 0.300 2.05 0.221 0.060 1.766 2.570 0.777 0.803 35.78 28.62 22774
90.0% 2.48 0.300 2.06 0.194 0.043 1.824 2.180 0.659 0.749 29.21 23.37 9438
95.0% 2.24 0.300 2.07 0.177 0.034 1.858 1.940 0.587 0.697 24.65 19.72 5901
99.0% 1.86 0.300 2.08 0.149 0.022 1.912 1.560 0.472 0.596 17.45 13.96 612
100.0% 1 1.000 2.11 0.077 0.004 2.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00
271286 kWh/year
Design values: 0.3 2.15 0.10 1.658 3.307 0.98 availability
6% 265860 kWh/year
H/Final Report minimised.doc

ANNEX B : Layout drawings
B1. Guildford Mill turbine house

PLAN VIEW
SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

B2. Hydro-electric scheme design: before and after installation

ANNEX C
Budget Quotation from DHPL

Ejemplo Guildford Borough Council

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ejemplo Guildford Borough Council

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study – Final Report

GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro

H/Final Report minimised.doc 1

Client contract No.: Letter 21/07/03

Final Report : Guildford Mill: Mini-Hydro Feasibility Study

Guildford Mill Feasibility Study

4. AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW....................................................................................................... 4

8. ENERGY MODELLING ................................................................................................................................ 12

11. COSTS AND ECONOMICS.......................................................................................................................... 16

H/Final Report minimised.doc i

ANNEX C : Budget Quotation from DHPL

In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended:

The Original Turbine

Availability of Head and Flow

Qmean Average Flow 5.66 m3/sec

H/Final Report minimised.doc ii

Environmental Issues and Licensing

H/Final Report minimised.doc iii

Figure 1 Head, Flow and Power calculations

Value of the power

H/Final Report minimised.doc iv

Figure 2 Guildford Mill and turbine house , September 2003

Figure 3 River Wey at Guildford

H/Final Report minimised.doc 1

Figure 4 Flow control structures

Boathouse weir and sluices EA sluices Millhouse sluices

2.3The Turbine House

Other important features of the turbine house are:

H/Final Report minimised.doc 2

Figure 5 Original installation drawings for Gilkes order no. 3718

Figure 6 Guildford turbine house

Draft tube entry View back towards intake

In the context of the turbine being reinstated, the survey recommended:

• Removal of the two innermost turbine support beams.

2.5The Original Turbine

Order No. 3718

3.SITE SURVEY OBSERVATIONS

4.28m × 1.6m = 6.85m2.

0.5 × 6.85 = 3.4m3/sec.

4.AVAILABILITY OF HEAD AND FLOW

H/Final Report minimised.doc 4

The key values to note are:

Qmean Average Flow 5.66 m3/sec

1 Guildford Mini Hydro Pre-feasibility Technical Assessment, J Marques Feb 2003

Figure 7 River Wey in Guildford:

Figure 8 Annual Hydrograph 1999 (Guildford data)

H/Final Report minimised.doc 6

5.1Reinstall existing turbine

Figure 9 The 1930 Gilkes turbine at Dapdune Wharf

The brief inspection revealed that:

• The runner is in adequate condition to be restored to working order; it appears to be fabricated

5.2Install second-hand turbine

Figure 10 Gilkes 42”C Francis turbine

5.3Install new turbine

H/Final Report minimised.doc 8

Figure 11 NHT vertical-axis Kaplan

MATERIALS DISK & FILE REF

CONTRACT DRAWING No.

5.4Conclusion on turbine choice

The open area of the screen can therefore be calculated to be 5.5m2.

H/Final Report minimised.doc 9